The more learn about Justice Scalia, the more I seem to 'connect' with him; something that surprizes (and to be honest, freightens!) me. Thanks for this series Slater!

3:31 pm May 30, 2008

L aser H aas wrote:

It would be wonderful to see what His Honor thinks of "Courting Disaster" by UCLA Law Prof LoPucki and how "courting" big cases for implied verdict outcomes tends to corrupt the Federal Court structure

3:40 pm May 30, 2008

Brennan is the Best wrote:

There is no way Scalia would have voted with Jackson on the Dissent in KOREMATSU. His opinions don't really stray from there strict originalist underpinnings. He's just doing that for the benefit of Slater...

3:50 pm May 30, 2008

Mike wrote:

Anyone want to guess how Scalia would have voted on Brown? Talk about original intent, the same Congress that passed the 14th amendment also voted to segregate the Washinton DC schools. Without a 9-0 decision, we'd still be fighting that battle school by school.

4:18 pm May 30, 2008

McConnell Reader wrote:

Mike at 3:50 PM is wrong on his facts. The 37th Congress created segregated public schools for black children in D.C. in 1862, but it was a later, different Congress — the 39th — that in 1866 proposed the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868.

In the years immediately following ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, as Congress acted to enact legislation enforcing the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment, a substantial majority of both houses of Congress repeatedly voted to abolish segregation in the public schools. Although filibuster tactics and other procedural obstacles prevented ultimate passage of legislation abolishing segregated schools, these votes provide powerful evidence that the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment was that segregated public schools were unconstitutional.

4:36 pm May 30, 2008

Willie wrote:

This is a very great man and a justice of real stature. Long after the Souters and Stevenses have been forgotten legal scholars will be bowing at the altar of Scalia's formidable intellect.

4:38 pm May 30, 2008

Anonymous wrote:

In the interview I'm reading (you know, the one posted at the top of the page), Scalia never says which way he would have voted in Korematsu. The point he makes is that dissent is good because it keeps the Court honest and allows dissenters to point out just how wrong the majority is.

5:17 pm May 30, 2008

Stevens is King wrote:

I agree with tde. Scalia would almost surely have gone with the majority in Korematsu. The great dissent he SHOULD have used is that done by Rehnquist in Roe v. Wade. But that would be showing his hand...

5:34 pm May 30, 2008

Tom Collins wrote:

Without negative feedback there can be no improvement. Dissent is negative feedback. One may think that it’s worthless after an SC decision has been rendered but it may serve as input for future decisions.
I'm occasionally wrong....that's how I get to right.
I highly regard the dissenters who tactfully point out the wrongs of my reasoning. I've learned more about measured reasoning (especially its persuasive power) from dissenters than from fanatical screamers who are never wrong. How many men who would change the world would change themselves first?

Catch & Release Report as of 6 pm, Fri, 5/30/08: 159 trout.

7:09 pm May 30, 2008

Steamboat Jack wrote:

The comments about Korematsu above are surprising. Justice Scalia is generally sympathetic to the party that ended slavery, passed the 13th and 14th amendments, and passed the Civil Rights Acts over the protests of the majority of Democrats. (Senator Al Gore voted against all of the voting rights legislation. Senior, that is, not his whining wannabe son.) Putting the Japanese in concentration camps was a liberal thing. FDR did it by executive order. It was not a US thing as the elected representatives never debated or voted on it.

We can all agree that the internment of the Japanese was wrong, even evil. So, we can all agree that the failure of the Republican Party was their failure to impeach Roosevelt and send him to Spandau Prison with the other Nazis.

7:13 pm May 30, 2008

Teedee wrote:

Shout out to my boy Murphy, J. He dissented too, you know.

8:01 pm May 30, 2008

EndHaiku wrote:

Sorry... A guy in the majority on Bush v. Gore has no business talking to me about originalism.

8:29 pm May 30, 2008

stfu wrote:

The people who say that there is "no way" Scalia would have been in the dissent in Korematsu are utterly clueless, if not willfully obtuse, with that obtuseness compounded by ignorance.

Who was it who forcefully dissented in Hamdi again? Yea. That's right. Scalia.

The parade of ignorant certitude here is why American politics is such a cesspool - nobody knows enough yet they pronounce their political and juridical opinions with dead certainty.

11:41 pm May 30, 2008

An Observation wrote:

Nice puff piece, Dan. Couldn't you come up with Any hard questions?

8:47 am May 31, 2008

Anonymous wrote:

I agree that Scalia has great intelligence. He can always find a way to write a decision supporting the Republican, right wing agenda. In every case, one can predict how Scalia will vote before the briefs and argument even take place. Instead of "just calling balls and strikes," Scalia and the other right wing justices are just there to promote a political agenda.

9:02 am May 31, 2008

YrralYellek wrote:

Being a relitively uneducated person, my observations of the SC lead me to think nearly all the recent decisions are actually pre-decided many years ago in the Justice's hard-wired minds.
Scalia is certainly right when he says "Dissents are just good".

9:27 am May 31, 2008

George Milton wrote:

As a citizen I am happy to know that at least some of the members of he court are intent on enforcing the actual contract that constitutes the government we created rather than ignoring what the agreement says and making decisions based on what they think it should have said.

This constitutional agreement is a compromise between the rights of the individuals, the states, and the government collective called the "people". Left unchecked the power of the collective both grows and is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands as the liberties of the individual fade to nothing.

9:51 am May 31, 2008

Erie Railroad wrote:

An Observation at 11:41... Interview was OK. Judges are the hardest to ask questions of. They have a tendency to not answer any direct questions and usually end interviews when you get pushy. They're life-tenured judges. I'm glad for what Scalia did say and think it was pretty unvarnished.

10:36 am May 31, 2008

Bob Cronin wrote:

When the -allegedly- most brilliant legal minds in the country can continually split 5-4 on crucial constitutional issues- there is something wrong - why cannot the Congress write clearer laws?

10:41 am May 31, 2008

Junior wrote:

2:27 - Why do you feel that way? Was it your mother? Tell us all about it...
Content WITHOUT context is dangerous! So is "we do it this way because it's the way we've always done it." Society changes.

11:10 am May 31, 2008

Americanus wrote:

I am assuming that almost all of the posters on this site are lawyers, or at least law school graduates. It is disheartening to see the extent of the depths to which legal education has sunk. Perhaps 1 out of every six or seven posts have even the slightest intellectual substance to them. Unfortunately many of you, of no substance, are probably in positions of some authority or public “service.”

12:14 pm May 31, 2008

Lawbbyist wrote:

Justice Scalia has a sound and defensible theory on judicial decision making. His philosophy, to which Thomas actually subscribes more faithfully, differs so greatly from what many believe justices ought to do. Comments that he has already decided issues, long before hearing the case, are correct. One need only look to his past opinions and dissents to know that he will stand by them. I heartilly disagree with this man on just about everything. But, applied consistently, his approach has made him the most rationally predictable justice on the court. It is a good thing to know your judiciary.

This guy is our point man on the Exxon punitives case. Watch and learn my little lambs!

10:15 pm May 31, 2008

Patrick wrote:

"The comments about Korematsu above are surprising. Justice Scalia is generally sympathetic to the party that ended slavery, passed the 13th and 14th amendments, and passed the Civil Rights Acts over the protests of the majority of Democrats. ... Putting the Japanese in concentration camps was a liberal thing. FDR did it by executive order."

A good history lesson. Some comments are reflective of the ignorance of people indoctrinated into unthinking kneejerk liberalism instead of thoughtful understanding of our history and constitution. I'm sure many were never taught the historical points you make, or airbrush them out of their minds. Scalia's approach is the sound approach to jurisprudence, he believes in the Constitution as written and his dissents are often fabulous rebuttals to the fatuous and unintelligable majority opinions of others. Scalia follows the law and Constitution faithfully in his opinions, and he knows the dangers of Govt power and has properly ruled against its abuses even while court liberals justified the unjustifiable, viz: Kelo. Kelo is the Korematsu of our time, and all the court liberals are guilty of a horrendsouly wrong ruling there.

11:08 am June 2, 2008

Anon wrote:

The problem with Scalia's dissents is not (always) the reasoning - its the tone. To person looking for questions to ask when he comes to visit - how about this: "To what extent do your biting dissents contribute to the problem of incivility in our profession?" Why should lawyers treat each other with respect when he derides his brothers and sister on the bench with such venom? He lowers the entire institution when he makes personal attacks - its unforgivable.

8:07 pm June 2, 2008

stfu wrote:

Some would describe his 'tone' as 'pugnacious' rather than 'venomous.'

And seeing as he gets along quite well with Justice Ginsburg off the Court - she calls him 'charming' in spite of his opinions - your concern about incivility is probably overstated.

8:14 pm June 2, 2008

stfu wrote:

Also, you mistake intellectually combative opinion writing for the state of the relationships between the Justices. Sure, maybe many are peeved from time to time by Scalia's combativeness; but do they really take it personally? Thank heavens they are wiser and have thicker skins than you have. Because if you're going to confuse the combativeness of a brief or an opinion with a personal beef with the person writing it, then this is not probably not the profession for you.

One can be perfectly proper as a matter of behavior without sacrificing rigor and combativeness in one's work product.

3:08 am April 27, 2009

cantstandscalia wrote:

Oh he's aweful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Disgusting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a horrible person! I don't know what's worse, the fact that he thinks it should be written into law that it matters what a woman was wearing if she was raped, or the fact that he thinks it's ok to kill 16 year olds... hell... the death penalty for people above 18 is wrong enough. He has no morals. He is a horrible human being.

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

About Law Blog

The Law Blog covers the legal arena’s hot cases, emerging trends and big personalities. It’s brought to you by lead writer Jacob Gershman with contributions from across The Wall Street Journal’s staff. Jacob comes here after more than half a decade covering the bare-knuckle politics of New York State. His inside-the-room reporting left him steeped in legal and regulatory issues that continue to grab headlines.

A federal judge in Manhattan rejected a bid by the conservative advocacy group Citizens United to stop New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman from requiring that charities disclose to him their major donors.

Concerns about a gender gap in the legal profession tend to focus on issues like pay, billing rates and who makes partner. A new study by the American Bar Association looks inside the federal courtroom to see who's trying cases.